Corrections Policy
Why this page exists
Crypto may be the easiest beat in journalism to get something wrong on. Prices move while the sentence describing them is being typed, projects announce things that turn out to be untrue, pseudonymous sources evaporate, and an on-chain “hack” sometimes turns out to be a migration nobody explained. CRYPTO QUILL will make mistakes. This page is our promise about what happens next, because a publication’s honesty is measured less by its error rate than by its behaviour in the hour after the error is found.
The core commitment
When we get a material fact wrong, we fix it quickly, we fix it visibly, and we say what changed. We do not silently rewrite articles, we do not delete embarrassing pieces and hope the archive forgets, and we do not bury a correction where nobody will find it. The correction appears on the article that contained the error, in a labelled note stating what we originally said, what the correct information is, and when the fix was made.
What counts as what
Corrections
A material error of fact: a wrong figure, a misattributed statement, a mischaracterised event, a transaction read incorrectly, the wrong token, the wrong chain, the wrong entity with a confusingly similar name, of which crypto has an endless supply. These get a labelled correction note, and if the error was serious enough to change the meaning of the piece, the note goes at the top.
Updates
New information that develops a story without falsifying what we published: a project responds after publication, a frozen withdrawal reopens, an exploit’s estimated losses are revised as investigators trace more wallets. These get a dated update note. The original reporting stands; the note extends it.
Clarifications
Cases where what we wrote was accurate but ambiguous, or technically correct in a way that a reasonable reader could take wrongly. These get a clarification note. In a field where “audited” and “safe” are routinely confused, we treat ambiguity about risk as seriously as outright error.
Minor fixes
Typos, formatting, and grammar that do not touch meaning are fixed without a note. A stale price in an old article is not an error; every figure we publish is timestamped by its context, as our Disclaimer explains.
Speed, and the special problem of markets
An uncorrected error on a news site is bad; an uncorrected error that traders may be acting on is worse. We prioritise corrections by potential harm, and market-sensitive mistakes go to the front of the queue at any hour. Our aim is to assess a credible correction report the day we receive it and to publish any needed correction as fast as verification allows. Verification still comes first: replacing one unverified claim with another is not a correction, it is a second error wearing a hat.
Headlines, social posts, and syndication
If the error appeared in a headline or in our social media posts, the correction goes there too, not just in the body text where fewer people will meet it. Where a corrected story has been syndicated or quoted elsewhere, we make reasonable efforts to notify the outlets that carried it.
Unpublishing
We do not unpublish accurate journalism because someone finds it inconvenient, and in crypto someone always does. Articles are removed only in rare cases: legal necessity, serious safety concerns, or reporting so wrong that no correction could rescue it, in which case the removal itself is noted. The archive is part of the record, corrections and all.
How to request a correction
Email support@cryptoquill.com with “Correction” in the subject line. Include the article link, the exact statement you believe is wrong, and your evidence, ideally a primary source: a transaction hash, an official filing, a signed statement, an archived page. On-chain evidence is especially welcome because it is checkable by anyone, including us, within minutes. We read every report, we acknowledge credible ones within two business days, and we correct whatever the evidence says we should, regardless of who the error favoured. Reports from the projects and exchanges we cover get exactly the same treatment as reports from readers: the evidence decides, not the sender.
